Business screen magazine (1946)

NUMBER FOURTEEN IN A SERIES I A I'KISCKIBIL) ABORTION. A lotcnl ion\rf.alion wilh a lop luilch inolion piilurc cngmcHT (IimUisccI a problem ihal west coast laboratories arc encountering when using the new reversal color internegative lilm lor the prociuction ol 35mm color release prints. He slated that it was neces5ar> to print the 35mm color reversal internegative "through the base" (base to emulsion), so that release prints made from such a negative would have the standard 35miii emulsion position, which incidentally is away from the projection lens. His concern was in regard to the loss of image quality encountered when printing the photographic image through the base of the original negative. His problem struck a very discordant note with me because one of my pet peeves is the so called "standard" emulsion position of 35mm prints. Film has always been loaded into a camera with the emulsion towjrd the lens, tngincers in our industry would never consider turning the film over, causing the small bundle of light rays of the image to pass through the transparent base material onto the emulsion. It is obvious that a terrific deterioration of image quality would result. So, after the original 35mm negative was exposed with the emulsion toward the lens, it was processed and a positive print was made. The best possible print definition was achieved by good continuous contact printing, emulsion to eniuhion. To maintain correct right and left orientation of our image it was necessary to project the print with its resulting "mirror" image so that the emulsion was jwjy from the projector lens — in a "reversed" position. As our industry grew and many prints were needed, it was necessary to protect the original negative from wear, so it became normal procedure to make a master positive print and from this master a duplicate negative was made. This dupe negative resembled the original negative in photographic characteristics and imago emulsion position. Release prints made from the dupe negative had the same "reverse" emulsion position as n print from the original negative. Are you aware what our industry has foolishly been doing for years in either procedure? We make 35mm release prints that have to be projected in such a manner that our beautiful photographic image must pass through the acetate base of the print on its way through the Ions to the screen. Today, no engineer would recommend such a procedure but our industry' not cjniy sanctions it but makes it routine. Normal practice today in the optical industry is to as'oid passing images through glass whenever possible, so front surfaced mirrors are commonplace. Many modern reflex cameras use front surfaced mirrors in an effort to obtain optimum image definition even for view finding. For years I have wished for a process that would eliminate the master positive step. Such an innovation would not only eliminate one printing and one film step, but would produce release prints with an image emulsion position that Is "forward" toward the projector lens, thereby eliminating any loss of definition caused by passing the photographic image through the base of the film. About fifteen years ago a producer brought to oui laboratory a 16mm original black and white negative prepared in A Sr U rolls and ordered an answer print. The print was accepterl by the client and an order was placed for a large number of release prints. We could not risk printing the large order from the orig inal A and B negative rolls, so we made the usual (omposile picture master positive and the subsequent dupe negative. The loss introduced in these two film steps produced a print which showed appreciable loss of definition when compared to the print from the original negative. At that time, it so happened we had been making tests in an attempt Id use Kodac hroine (amera stock as a reversal internegative. We had not been satisfied with the color that we obtained, but we thought that this method might prove satisfactory for a black and white image. A negative intermediate was made on Kodachrome and a print from it was enthusiastically approved by the customer. We had achieved several things — we protected the original negative, we reduced the price of the print by printing from a single roll instead of A and B, we improved the quality by eliminating the master positive film step, and we improved definition on the screen because the emulsion position was towjrd the projector lens. In the early days of television we were making 125 prints of a sveekly half hour show. The subject matter was so timely that speed was imperative. It was photographed each \tonday wilh multi camera (echniquo onto 16mm black and white negative, and all release prints with an emulsion position away from the lens were shipped Tuesday. The release prints were developed, waxed, shipped and run on television projectors in a matter of hours. Because such prints wore still "green" (unseasoned), we received many complaints from stations claiming that prints jumped and emulsion had a tendency to pile up In the gate of the projector. We experimented with many types of drying conditions and many typos of waxes, but to no avail. In desperation, the show was photographed on reversal film from which a dupe negative was made, and release prints were made from the dupe. These release prints were made and shown under the same identical conditions as the release prints from the original negative, but because the emulsion position was now toward the lens — "forward," all the complaints disappeared. Additional tests convinced us that all projection prints regardless of format should have a "forward" emulsion position. Recommended practice today (with which I disagree) states that 35mm prcijection prints should have an emulsion position away from the lens and this position is called "standard." In 16mm and 8mni however, the recommended standard emulsion position is "forward" or toward the projection lens. So 16mm and 8mni actually have better standards than 35mm! So you can see why my friend's remarks disturbed me. A film manufacturer had taken the initiative to research, design, and manufacture a great new product— color reversal internegative — designed to improve color and definition. A side dividend was the fact that it put the image emulsion position of 35mm where it should be. Whv then should we lose the benefits by compounding our errors and introducing more distortion by piinting the negative through the basef My friend commented that if labs furnished prints with a forward emulsion position, problems might be experienced because of the failure of the theater pro|ectionist to refocus. This is not a valid excuse lor delivering an inferior product. Improved tools are great, but w»' must learn how to use them! byron circle 103 on re.ider service card BUSINESS SCREEl